ma_testfandomcom-20200214-history
Talk:Samantha Wildman
PNA Needs work. She appeared in something like 8 episodes and only two are referenced. --Gvsualan 17:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC) ---- "She was married to a Ktarian called Greskrendtregk and fell pregnant with his child shortly before leaving Deep Space Nine." Fell pregnant, almost fell out of my chair laughing at that one, actually tempted to leave it in. Signed, Tyrant Citations Hm, well, I've dug through my closet looking for the appropriate Star Trek: The Magazine, but didn't find it (did find VHS though :( ) The "Vorik, Carey, Wildman" reference comes from an issue of Star Trek: The Magazine, back from near the end of Voyager I would think, an interview with the writers saying upcoming and recent story lines. I want to say its the same issue that mentions was originally about Tuvok's daughter's investigation on Vulcan. The "named after..." comment (also, why she's an exobiologist) comes from (among other places I think) another kind of star trek magazine, not an issue of Star Trek: The Magazine. Will also keep searching for that one, seems like it comes from early-mid-Voyager. - AJ Halliwell 13:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC) :Since nothing has come up in over three years, I have removed the note for now. If someone can track down the reference, feel free to re-add: :* *Alongside Joe Carey and Vorik, the character was one of the recurring characters shortlisted to be killed off before the series came to end. Eventually, the writing team decided to kill off Carey in the episode . :–Cleanse ( talk | ) 02:13, January 15, 2012 (UTC) Prolonged pregnancy? We all know she got pregnant before Voyager was transported to the Delta Quadrant...yet she didn't give birth until the end of Season Two!! Now, I realize that some people might not know that normal human gestation is only nine months and NOT two years, but seriously, that's a record-breaker. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that she had a half-human kid, but still...doesn't anyone else agree that it's notable enough to be mentioned in the article?? --Alex Munro :Dealt with in .--Archer4real 16:26, May 27, 2011 (UTC) ::If that is the case, it should be mentioned in the article. Right now, it is not. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:38, May 27, 2011 (UTC) :“''If''?” EMH: ‘child is Half Ktarian … which should nearly double her gestation period.’ Check it out.--Archer4real 15:47, May 29, 2011 (UTC) :::Since the mother is human, and not Kitarian, it would still not explain why she is even biologically able to carry a child for nearly two years. That doesnt make sense but it is not up to us here to debate that. I think this article should mention in some kind of background note that the Doc explained why Wildman was pregnant for 2 years. Distantlycharmed 16:55, May 29, 2011 (UTC) ::It shouldn't be a background note. I said "if" because no direct quote from the episode was provided. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:45, May 31, 2011 (UTC) The Doc’s phrasing in Fury strongly suggests that when he says Naomi’s gestation period was ‘almost double’ he meant double that of a fully human child’s gestation period, as opposed to, say, a quarter less of a full Ktarian pregnancy. I think this talk about ‘two years’ is invalid because it’s canonically simply not so. Cold Fire is set 11 months after Caretaker, and there are twelve episodes inclusive between Cold Fire and Deadlock. We know that at least ‘a couple’ of months elapse between (Investigations), pretty definitely more. Also I think it should be noted it’s a splendid little retcon (IMO, anyway).--Archer4real 09:29, June 2, 2011 (UTC) Tattoo? Where precisely in VOY:Tattoo does it mention shooting pains in her legs? I've just watched it, no reference at all??– 02:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC) :Right here: ::EMH: "Choose the word that would best describe your pain; burning, throbbing, piercing, pinching, biting, stinging, shooting..." ::WILDMAN: "Shooting. It even goes down my legs." :There ya go. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Apologies forthat, you're correct. For some reason my copy of Maneouvres was labelled Tattoo, and vice versa... weird.– 02:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Named after I decided to boldly remove a sentence from the article: Diggs was so grateful that he named a character after the little girl. The fact that the character was named after the girl is already clear in the previous sentence: that the naming was done out of gratitude (as opposed to...I cannot really conjure up what else) does get lost with my edit but can easily be supported by, if not established through a reading of the web source, which actually, on the other hand, does not explicitly state the consequence "gratitude>naming" - it is left to the reader, as it really should, in my opinion. I hope I have not been out of order, but I was a little unconfortable with the possible implication that for a writer to name a character of a TV series might be the absolutely most fitting tribute to a child whose organs saved the writer's wife, or, for that matter, that, as delicate a gesture this is, it could be at all implied to be the hardest of sacrifices or even the fullest of compensations on Diggs's part. (Having read his quotes, I would agree that he does seem to be proud of it.) In short: that a lot of gratitude was involved is common sense but, at least to my taste, how big of a deal this naming was should be left to everyone's opinion. Any thoughts? 01:01, June 16, 2012 (UTC) :I don't really mind about the removal, since it was a bit redundant. But I'm not sure what your objection is to the word "grateful". It just means "feeling or showing an appreciation of kindness; thankful". Which Diggs clearly was from the words quoted on the website.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 07:25, June 16, 2012 (UTC) I am sorry that I was less than clear. What I meant is: *half of the sentence was plain redundant; *the only part that was not redundant but instead a new piece of information, namely the word "grateful" (with which I have no problem, nor do I doubt its validity in the specific case), is thrown out with the bath water, I admit and regret. But common sense and a quick reading of the source (as both you and I point out above) make this loss negligible: it is still there in the source, it's obvious for everyone human enough to put him/herself in Jimmy's shoes, and any other alternative explanation for the naming (as in, I don't know, "Diggs hadn't thought about it, it was the parents' idea and specific request after learning, somehow, that he wrote/could write/was about to write for the show"?) would be somewhat far-fetched; *the sentence "Diggs was so grateful that he named a character after the little girl", as it stood, implied (and grammatically so) that Diggs could have been less grateful than he was, and that if his gratitude had clocked at less than a certain threshold, it would not have warranted as great a gesture as naming a fictional character after the girl. The reader is then left to draw upon his/her real-world knowledge to make hypotheses as to the alleged greatness of the act: was it intrinsically an honour of the utmost importance? did it entail a great deal of difficulty or personal sacrifice to be obtained? finally, was it in any way commensurate with the organ donation? all of the above? My humble opinion is that the account of the organ donation and Diggs's tribute to the girl is best served without any pre-made indirect value judgements: they should really be left to the readers' sensibilities. (Personally, I think it was a cool thing to do: only, I don't need an article telling me "it totally was, eh? Man, he must'f been soah grateful...", just the facts.) I hope I made my point, nit-picking as it may be. Thanks for reading! 13:46, June 16, 2012 (UTC) ::Since you started with no indentation, it should remain that way in this section. 31dot 13:54, June 16, 2012 (UTC) Oh. Got it. A poster's replies are all aligned with one another, then? I thought it worked as on WP talkpages, where, even if it's just the same two contributors bickering, they go on indenting until it's ridiculously too narrow. (I also re-formatted because I had't seen your remark and thought I had messed up.) Carry on. 14:11, June 16, 2012 (UTC)